Amendment 64

[Elmer_C]

Living here in Utard, where the majority of folks seem to hate government intrusion and paying taxes, I've found that most of them want big government in their face constantly. They want the government regulating marriage (just leave the polygamists alone), they want the government involved in women's health issues, they want the government incarcerating pot smokers, they want the government controlling the liquor industry. Hell, not too long ago they wanted big government to protect them from cable television.

Newsflash: All of this in your face government costs you plenty, so quit whining about big government if you support these intrusions.

[unaweep]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

I was asking serious questions. Wasn't trying to talk about fear or boogey men.
Just wondering if the amendment as written would literally regulate pot just like alcohol.
As in can you walk into a weed store and buy as much as you want. Can you light up anywhere beer is allowed (other than inside restaurants). Also was wondering if deceriminilization is the goal for so many, then why not just decriminalize it?
Do you know the answers to any of these? I'd kind of like to know what things would be like if this were to pass. I feel a lot of were mislead about the MMJ bill when it passed a few years ago. Life after that bill was different than what was advertised during the campaign season.
Just curious what others think things would actually be like if this passes.

The law would allow people to possess up to one ounce. It would be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. Never been to a Rockies game- are you allowed to smoke cigarrettes there? I imagine there would be the same restrictions (or more) for cannabis second hand smoke as there is for tobacco.

[MeterPig]

Originally Posted by Elmer_C

Living here in Utard, where the majority of folks seem to hate government intrusion and paying taxes, I've found that most of them want big government in their face constantly. They want the government regulating marriage (just leave the polygamists alone), they want the government involved in women's health issues, they want the government incarcerating pot smokers, they want the government controlling the liquor industry. Hell, not too long ago they wanted big government to protect them from cable television.

Newsflash: All of this in your face government costs you plenty, so quit whining about big government if you support these intrusions.

Yes, Utah Mormons are some of the biggest hypocrites around as evidenced by the one that is running for president.

[MeterPig]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

I was asking serious questions. Wasn't trying to talk about fear or boogey men.
Just wondering if the amendment as written would literally regulate pot just like alcohol.
As in can you walk into a weed store and buy as much as you want. Can you light up anywhere beer is allowed (other than inside restaurants). Also was wondering if deceriminilization is the goal for so many, then why not just decriminalize it?
Do you know the answers to any of these? I'd kind of like to know what things would be like if this were to pass. I feel a lot of were mislead about the MMJ bill when it passed a few years ago. Life after that bill was different than what was advertised during the campaign season.
Just curious what others think things would actually be like if this passes.

Can you take oxy in quantity in the men's bathroom to feel the rush? Probably. Smoke it, probably not. There is more than one way to consume cannabis. Smoking being the most offensive to others.

[TNC]

Originally Posted by MeterPig

Yes, Utah Mormons are some of the biggest hypocrites around as evidenced by the one that is running for president.

Very classy way to make your point in this discussion

[MeterPig]

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion...odopedxml.html

Another state, another endorsement towards moving away from prohibition.

[Myfuture_yourdebt]

TheDude said he was going to vote two days ago and was leaning towards voting yes on 64.

Yet he didn't even know the amendment includes a possession limit of one ounce per person at least 21 y/o, until someone on this very forum informed his sorry ass

Why is he posting in a thread about an amendment he doesn't even know the basic tenets of...? From his posts I'd say he thinks that this thread is here for the explicit purpose of informing him about this amendment.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by Myfuture_yourdebt

TheDude said he was going to vote two days ago and was leaning towards voting yes on 64.

Yet he didn't even know the amendment includes a possession limit of one ounce per person at least 21 y/o, until someone on this very forum informed his sorry ass

Why is he posting in a thread about an amendment he doesn't even know the basic tenets of...? From his posts I'd say he thinks that this thread is here for the explicit purpose of informing him about this amendment.

You undeer estimate me grasshopper.

I read the entire amendment before I voted, Because I actually readt this) and I knew the answers to each question I asked in post #208. I wasn't asking for myself, I was just asking. I was curious how many people here knew the answers. They are easy enough to find. The answer to how much you can buy at any one time is "one ounce". The answer to how much you can posses or transport is one ounce. The answer to smoking at a Rockies game is " (d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.". So, no you can't smoke a fatty at a Rockies game. Not one person got that one right.

My point was to point out how little those who are voting in favor of this ammendment actually know about it. The info is easy enough to find, yet only one person pointed out the one ounce provision, no one pointed out the "openly and publicly" clause and you MyStalker_youbet once again pointed nothing out at all.

[TheDudeAbides]

Another question: If someone 21 years old can posses one ounce, can someone 42 posses two ounces??

[Myfuture_yourdebt]

No one even said "yes, you would be able to smoke a joint at a Rockies game". One person joked that they'd want to, that's it. No one openly referenced the public consumption restriction, so what? Most people have the common sense to know that public consumption would be illegal, they don't need to go looking for that info. You do, though, don't you.

But don't let me get in the way of your public education efforts. I'm sure we all appreciate it without even knowing.

Have you pointed out even one person who said they'd voted Yes yet admitted or demonstrated that they know nothing about 64?

No you haven't. In all your "educational posts", you've managed not to do that at all, yet you claim you have, no surprise! At least I've pointed out your uselessness.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by Myfuture_yourdebt

No one even said "yes, you would be able to smoke a joint at a Rockies game". One person joked that they'd want to, that's it. No one openly referenced the public consumption restriction, so what? Most people have the common sense to know that public consumption would be illegal, they don't need to go looking for that info. You do, though, don't you.

But don't let me get in the way of your public education efforts. I'm sure we all appreciate it without even knowing.

No one said public consumption is prohibited. Which was the correct answer and easy to find.
This amendment will probably pass (which is fine by me), but it's interesting to see how many people who voted didn't take the time to read it.

[Myfuture_yourdebt]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

No one said public consumption is prohibited. Which was the correct answer and easy to find.
This amendment will probably pass (which is fine by me), but it's interesting to see how many people who voted didn't take the time to read it.

Where are these people?

[Myfuture_yourdebt]

http://www.governing.com/blogs/polit...al-states.html

[Elmer_C]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

No one said public consumption is prohibited. Which was the correct answer and easy to find.
This amendment will probably pass (which is fine by me), but it's interesting to see how many people who voted didn't take the time to read it.

I got to this thread late, but it seems there is only one person here that selectively deleted almost all of his posts---and by his own admission. Worse yet, he deleted them after the moderator refused to move the thread. That says a lot. Having spent four years on the debate team in college I can say that Dude, you are not abiding.

[1Gopokes1]

The "war on drugs" has been a utter failure

A certain % of the population likes to alter their reality through various means, alcohol, excessive exercise, food, pot.religion, , cocaine. making one illeagl while another is legal is insane. It is like saying some relegions are good and some are bad and banned, ( jews are Ok baptist are evil and illegal)

There will always be some chemist combining a new combination of elements to give people a buzz. faster than laws can be made to outlaw those compounds. If the newest rage is mainlining windex will windex be outawed??

All that $$ is going to cartels and organized crimes, could be going to tax dollars

Cops are lazy it is easier to arrest drug addicts than, gun runners, rapist, white collar criminals, bank robbers etc.
The system creats a permant under class, or repeat offenders. local users/ get out of jail, in this economy they can't get jobs. What do they do, deal drugs, If you deal drugs ( you aren't protected by the law, so they are armed) they get arrested and now it is a federal cae ( felon with a gun) now they do fedral time ( taxpayers pay for all this)

Could you image if everyone who had a burbon, beer, glass of wine. Could be arrested, loose their home, kids, jobs

A ot of pepople use various subsatnces at various times in their lives if they happened to get caught should it ruin their entire life ( El presidenta admits using pot and Cocaine in his book. if he had gotten busted what would be be shoe shine boy???)

this will be like state gambling in the 80's when one state does the rest will see the tax $$$$ and join the flow

If you don't like it don't do it??????????????